Holder vs. Holder

Why does the Obama Justice Department seem to have trouble mounting a full-throated, compelling legal defense of Osama bin Laden’s killing?

This is the opening question in Andrew McCarthy's article, but Mr. McCarthy is too polite and hopes to seek an alternate solution to Holder's problem.

Actually, it is just the simple answer. It is the same answer as to why Holder plans to prosecute the CIA agents who 'tortured' captured Muslim Terrorist's of al-Qaeda who in turn facilitated the death of bin Laden. The answer is plain, Holder is a political radical. Holder persecutes those who would protect the U. S., while protecting our enemies. Here are two foremost examples. His former law firm defends the war prisoners in the Guantanamo Detention Camp. Second, he dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers who had confessed to white voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place. Holder's actions are based on his long held political inclination rather than his legal responsibility. ♘

Holder vs. Holder - National Review Online

by Andrew C. McCarthy MAY 7, 2011

When it comes to terrorists, the AG is at odds with himself.

Why does the Obama Justice Department seem to have trouble mounting a full-throated, compelling legal defense of Osama bin Laden’s killing?

The problem for Eric Holder the attorney general could be Eric Holder the private attorney.

In 2004, Mr. Holder chose to file an amicus brief on behalf of Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda terrorist sent to our country by bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to carry out a post-9/11 second wave of attacks. In the brief, Holder argued that a commander-in-chief lacks the constitutional authority to do what his boss, the current commander-in-chief, has just done: determine the parameters of the battlefield. By Holder’s lights — at least when the president is not named Obama — an al-Qaeda terrorist must be treated as a criminal defendant, not an enemy combatant, unless he is encountered on a traditional battlefield.

It would be useful if staffers at congressional oversight hearings passed around copies of Holder’s Padilla brief. It is a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief). This might explain why Holder sometimes has difficulty answering seemingly easy questions. That’s what happened this week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee quizzed the attorney general on the lawfulness of the U.S. military’s targeted killing of bin Laden.

[Read on- http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/266657 ]